Danang Bayu Anggoro v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 34/2023[2026] HKCFI 2880

Court

High Court CFI

Date29 May 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 34/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 34 of 2023

BETWEEN
	Danang Bayu Anggoro	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee:

1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petitions Office as the Putative Respondent and adding Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 10 January 2023, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 9 December 2022 (the “Board” and the “Board Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 January 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected his non-refoulement claims on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”).

2.The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink[1].

3.The Applicant sought an oral hearing of his application. On 13 April 2026, the Court received a letter from the Applicant stating that “I want to go home to Indonesia because I want to get married, I’m not young anymore and my girlfriend has been waiting for 5 years for me to marry her.”

Discussion

4.The Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me on 11 May 2026.

5.I have considered the Applicant’s letter dated 13 April 2026 which bears, amongst other things, his full name and telephone number, the action number of the Leave Application as well as his signature.

6.In the circumstances, there is no indication that the abovementioned letter was not written and sent other than out of the Applicant’s own accord, volition and free will. The same clearly indicates the Applicant’s wish to return to his home country and put an end to the Leave Application. I consider that the said letter amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review. [2]

7.Subsequent to the hearing, the Court also received a letter from the Director of Immigration dated 13 May 2026 confirming that the Applicant had submitted a letter on 20 April 2026 indicating that he would like to withdraw his judicial review application.

Conclusion

8.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof. As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further order that the leave application be dismissed.[3]

Dated the 29^th day of May 2026

(Klein Tse)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 29 May 2026 Danang Bayu Anggoro Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 29 May 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19936 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2227/21 (formerly RBCZ 5000106/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000034_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[2] Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petition Office & Anor [2023] HKCA 653 at [9] to [10] & [25].

[3] Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19]; opt. cited in Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petition Office & Anor [2023] HKCA 653 at [25] to [26].